Ruwart wins NCLP straw poll
From the Mary Ruwart for President Committee:
Dr. Mary Ruwart is the overwhelming choice of North Carolina Libertarians for the 2008 Presidential nomination. She won a non-binding straw poll April 13 at the annual State Convention in Burlington, N.C.
She earned 68 percent of the vote. George Phillies had 3 percent, Wayne Allyn Root received 2 percent, and Bob Barr, Mike Gravel and Steve Kubby got 1 percent each.
Dr. Ruwart is a North Carolina “favorite daughter.” She lived in the state for four years, before moving to Texas and taking on Ann Richards in a race for U.S. Senate. She didn’t just attend the entire convention, but also played “Vanna White” for the party’s auction.
The annual event raises funds for ballot access and a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the states highly restrictive ballot access laws.
“I always feel like I’m coming home when I visit North Carolina. There’s a lot of love here,” Dr. Ruwart said. “I’m proud to have the confidence and support of North Carolina libertarians.”
Her comments during the Presidential Forum offered a stark contrast to the usual speeches by politicians and illustrate her campaign theme “Heal America.” In place of the usual bombast and appeal to greed, Dr. Ruwart quietly, simply and persuasively explained that doing the right thing voluntarily—the libertarian way—is the most pragmatic way to bring about peace and prosperity.
“Only liberty can heal the rifts that divide and impoverish America,” said Dr. Ruwart. “Freedom breeds compassion, tolerance and prosperity. Coercion breeds conflict, fear and poverty.”
“Liberty is the compassionate choice.”
This is the second of three straw polls Mary has won since entering the race. She finished fourth in the Heartland Libertarian Conference straw vote, held a week after she entered the race. Bob Barr, the conference keynote speaker, finished second, just 2 points behind Wayne Allyn Root at 24 percent of the vote.
The next day, Dr. Ruwart received 34 percent of the vote in the Ohio LP Convention, 14 points ahead of the second place finisher Mike Gravel and Root. Barr did not receive any votes.
The two-third landslide victory in North Carolina may be the beginning of a surge for liberty.
Mary will be attending the Washington State LP Convention in Tacoma Saturday, April 19 and the Indiana LP Convention in Indianapolis Saturday, April 25.
UPDATE: I received the following from the Ruwart campaign:
CORRECTION: Some of the percentages reported in the earlier version of this campaign news release, posted on Third Party Watch and other websites and blogs yesterday, were actually raw votes. We apologize for this mix-up and we are releasing this corrected version which reports the proper percentages.
Dr. Mary Ruwart is the overwhelming choice of North Carolina Libertarians for the 2008 Presidential nomination. She won a non-binding straw poll April 13 at the annual State Convention in Burlington, N.C.
She earned 68 percent of the vote. George Phillies had 12 percent, Wayne Allyn Root received 8 percent, and Bob Barr, Mike Gravel and Steve Kubby got 4 percent each.
Dr. Ruwart is a North Carolina “favorite daughter,” having lived in the state four years before moving to Texas. She didn’t just attend the entire convention, but also played “Vanna White” for the party’s annual auction of libertarian collectibles, held to raise funds for ballot access and a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the states highly restrictive ballot access laws.
“I always feel like I’m coming home when I visit North Carolina. There’s a lot of love here,” Dr. Ruwart said. “I’m proud to have the confidence and support of North Carolina libertarians.”
Her comments during the Presidential Forum offered a stark contrast to the usual speeches by politicians and illustrate her campaign theme “Healing America.” In place of the usual bombast and appeal to greed, Dr. Ruwart quietly, simply and persuasively explained that doing the right thing voluntarily—the libertarian way—is the most pragmatic way to bring about peace and prosperity.
“Only liberty can heal the rifts that divide and impoverish America,” said Dr. Ruwart. “Freedom breeds compassion, tolerance and prosperity. Coercion breeds conflict, fear and poverty.”
“Liberty is the compassionate choice.”
This is the second of three straw polls Dr. Ruwart has won since entering the race. She finished fourth in the Heartland Libertarian Conference straw poll, held a week after she entered the race, with 14% of the vote. Bob Barr, the conference keynote speaker, finished second, just 3 percentage points behind front runner, Wayne Allyn Root, who received 24 percent of the vote. Mike Gravel garnered 17 percent.
The next day, Dr. Ruwart received 33 percent of the vote in the Ohio LP Convention, 14 percentage points ahead of the second place finishers Mike Gravel and Root. Barr did not receive any votes.
The landslide victory in North Carolina may be the beginning of a surge for liberty.
Dr. Ruwart will attend the Washington State LP Convention in Tacoma Saturday, April 19 and the Indiana LP Convention in Indianapolis Saturday, April 25. Her husband, Ray Carr, will represent her in Louisiana on April 19 and in New York on April 25.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
That makes two in a row! Keep ‘em comin’. Quietly, and deliberately, delegates are going to see that Mary Ruwart is no only the best candidate, and that she has no need to answer for why she differs with the party’s platform (because she doesn’t), but this will shine the light on why the other candidates DO.
So much for certain LRC folks saying that we need a platform our candidate can run on!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“She earned 68 percent of the vote. George Phillies had 3 percent, Wayne Allyn Root received 2 percent, and Bob Barr, Mike Gravel and Steve Kubby got 1 percent each.”
Math problem: 17 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 25. Ruwart 68% Phillies 12%
Root 8% Barr, Gravel, and Kubby 4% each.
Mixing apples and oranges in the press release.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Thanks Kedzie Bear you saved me some typing, funny how the mistake was in FAVOR of their campaign-lol.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
And what will she do for the Party if nominated? Absolutely nothing.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ruwart dominates LPNC straw poll
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp—- April 13th, 2008
These straw poll results just in from Susan Hogarth at North Carolina’s Libertarian Party convention:
Mary Ruwart: 17
George Phillies: 3
Wayne Allyn Root: 2
Bob Barr: 1
Mike Gravel: 1
Steve Kubby: 1
Ummm…this was posted previously…old news…good for her (again)
April 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I wouldn’t say absolutely nothing. She’ll get the usual 300,000 or so votes, she’ll sell a lot of yard signs and bumper stickers, and if she ends up in a debate with Ralph Nader, she will be the Libertarian Party’s first major public humiliation.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Wrong David, I am far from a libertarian, but Mary Ruwart would put that stalinist/fascist criminal Ralph Nader in his place, ending his career forever.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Mr. Gaines, Let’s see Ralph Nader, yet that’s right the consumer advocate who has been a household name since the 1960’s, now running for a fourth time for president, garnered a whopping 465,650 votes in 2004. Ralph Nader, an ICON consumer advocate, who has been a household name for longer than the Libertarian Party has been around! And for your information, 300,000 or so votes is not usual.
Badnarik 398,000
Browne 385,000
Browne 485,000
Marrou 283,000 (the year Ross Perot got 19,000,000)
Paul 433,000
Joseph Marzullo Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
And what will she do for the Party if nominated? Absolutely nothing.
I am glad that your crystal ball is working so well. As Thomas Knapp pointed out, the last time an LP presidential candidate didn’t run on a right wing oriented platform, (1980) Ed Clark received 921,000 votes, and that was when John Anderson ran as an independent Republican and got 7 million votes. Ruwart is not running, nor would she run a conservative oriented campaign. History already is on her side to do well with that type of campaign. Beyond that, if what it takes is a Barr or Gravel to “do well”, then maybe the electorate just isn’t ready for freedom yet. Barr and Gravel certainly only have libertarian leanings at this point. Tell me what does, even if possible 1 million votes or more do for “the party” if their campaign isn’t even very libertarian?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I talked with Mary Ruwart’s husband Ray this past weekend.
The reason that the Ruwart campaign is not doing more is because they have very little in the way of staff/volunteers.
I see many of you on here make positive commnets about Mary Ruwart, as I have as well.
I am already helping Steve Kubby, but if time allows I may help Mary as well in some ways. Regardless of what I do, those of you who are backing her should contact their campaign and help in some ways beyond just blog comments.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
paulie, I’m already there.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
BTW, Kedzie Bear and Jerry S., if you want to point out simple arithmetic errors (it looks more like a percentage vs. raw # mistake), fine. Those kinds of things can easily be corrected and alleviated in the future.
Substantial things, such as running on warmongering, watered down tax schemes like Fair Tax or national sales taxes, etc are fundamental positions which are much more indicative of a campaign’s core value. You can agree or disagree with any campaigns platform or issue stands, but criticism of such petty, easily remedied errors are worth very little, other than to tear down. Have at it if you like, but it only reflects on your pettiness.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
For all the numbers crunchers:
The biggest factor will be how close the D/R race is. I expect it will be a huge double digit landslide victory for the Democrats, even after the Diebold margin of error, unless Bush gets (lucky?) with a terrorist attack or some other excuse to cancel the election. (“temporarily”).
McCain may very well go down with the lowest percentage of the vote ever by a Republican for president.
I think a lot of people will fell safe in casting third party/independent votes this year.
Second, there is a libertarian current in the air. Last year, when I circulated Green, Libertarian and Constitution petitions in Arkansas simultaneously, a LOT of people were asking for the Libertarians by name. That did not use to happen.
Ron Paul did far better in attracting money, attention and activists than Kucinich, Gravel or Tancredo. It wasn’t based on his looks or speaking abilities, but on his ideas – particularly early in the campaign when he emphasized his libertarian views, as opposed to later on when he tried a ploy for the Tancredo vote, which failed, and sent independents packing for Obama. Ruwart, or Kubby, could – and I do mean could, not necessarily would – capture a lot of that energy.
Barr could too, with the right campaign – but so far it does not look promising. Instead of an unequivocal call to cut and eliminate as many taxes and as much spending as he possibly can, he calls for a trojan horse of a fraudulent “fair” tax. Instead of running as a changed man, he equivocates between that and running on his record. Who better than Barr to speak out on Bush impeachment? Yet, chances are he won’t touch it. Even though Ron Paul managed to bring up ending the war on drugs without getting slammed on national TV, Barr couldn’t go beyond making it a states rights issue, and admitted he would still be for the drug war at the local and state level, where most of it takes place – and still supports federal foreign aid to fight “narco-terrorism” and intervene in foreign wars.
Much of what made the Ron Paul campaign was the effective use of new technology – meetups, youtube, facebook, myspace – which any of the Libertarians may be able to use as well.
With the economy in a tailspin, a truce in Iraq that is unlikely to hold into the fall, and a president and Congress of “two different” parties who are both hugely unpopular and about to get more so, why assume that any of the serious candidates for the LP nomination is incapable of doing far better than LP presidential candidates have typically done before? That type of pessimism is in my view entirely unwarranted.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Steve I haven’t seen one candidate in the entire field propose war mongering. Kubby has been the one to put those words out there for you to repeat. Math errors are easy to fix but spreading a lie is far more unforgiveable.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
paulie Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
McCain may very well go down with the lowest percentage of the vote ever by a Republican for president.
I do hope McCain get the lowest percentage, but Barry Goldwater had only about 38-39% in 1964. That’s going to be tough to poll below.
Assuming your analysis is correct, how much does “candidate” play into vote getting, and how much do outside, uncontrollable factors contribute?
Also, if your analysis is substantially correct, doesn’t that make it better to nominate the candidate who best represents the party’s core values and positions?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
W.A.R. and W.A.R.-the answer to two questions: “who is warmongering”, and “who is a liar”?
Yep I agree with you Tom, lying is unforgivable. Wayne “I won every category in the Libertarian Lists survey” Allyn Root, isn’t a liar though.
Wayne “I was only making odds on a McCain-Lieberman ticket and not endorsing them” Allyn Root, isn’t a liar either.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
As far as W.A.R.’s warmongering, I heard him with my own ears (saw him explain it with my own eyes) last year in Orlando, Florida, calling for a stepped up war on terror, especially on those “Islamo-Fascists”.
Sounded like it was right out of Giuliani’s or McCain’s playbook.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Assuming your analysis is correct, how much does “candidate” play into vote getting, and how much do outside, uncontrollable factors contribute?
It seems that both play a role. Badnarik was able to go from zero to almost Harry Browne by relentless campaigning and a decent campaign team. Four years earlier, Harry Browne came close to beating Pat Buchanan, even though Buchanan had been all over national TV and other media for decades, had served prominently in several administrations, had won some Republican presidential primaries, had seven figure election welfare, was running as the candidate of a party that had a sitting governor at the time and had received close to double digits for president in the previous election, etc.
Badnarik, Browne and Buchanan would all have undoubtably done better if the major party contest was not so close.
Also, if your analysis is substantially correct, doesn’t that make it better to nominate the candidate who best represents the party’s core values and positions?
Yes, I think Kubby or Ruwart fit that bill. Kubby has an advantage in that he has a record of actually getting pro-freedom legislation passed. Ruwart has an advantage in having an excellent campaign book, great “short answers to tough questions,” and enough money to do campaign basics like travel to state conventions. Either one would be greatly preferable to the alternatives.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I do hope McCain get the lowest percentage, but Barry Goldwater had only about 38-39% in 1964. That’s going to be tough to poll below.
I think Goldwater’s low will not be a serious challenge for Mr. McCain. But I wonder if he can set the bar lower than, say, Taft, with 23.2%? If not, perhaps he can at least get less than Fremont, who received 33.1% of the vote in 1856?
As far as W.A.R.’s warmongering, I heard him with my own ears (saw him explain it with my own eyes) last year in Orlando, Florida, calling for a stepped up war on terror, especially on those “Islamo-Fascists”.
Yes, I was there too – and it’s true. He sounds better now, except when he goes on Glenn Beck.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
“Steve I haven’t seen one candidate in the entire field propose war mongering. Kubby has been the one to put those words out there for you to repeat.”
All Kubby did was accurately summarize Root’s record. As of last January, Root supported escalation of the “war on terror,” not withdrawal from Iraq. As of last July in debate with Kubby, he had moved a little: “Iraq was the wrong war—Iran is the right war!” Now he calls himself a “non-interventionist” when talking to Libertarians, but when he goton Beck’s show last month, he delivered a “conservative porn” edition of the “Islamo-fascist” fairy tale.
There are two possible reasons for Root’s bizarre approach to foreign policy: Either he’s lying and pandering, or he’s out of his depth and so hopelessly confused that even he doesn’t fully understand what the hell he really believes.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I say we kill the terrorists…kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out!
April 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
paulie Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
But I wonder if he can set the bar lower than, say, Taft, with 23.2%?
paulie, you are TOO MUCH! Funny
Thomas K.
Wow, what a choice you leave W.A.R. a-lying, b-pandering, or c-totally confused! You Mr. Knapp are TOO MUCH as well! Excellent!
April 14th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Have any of you seen this about Barr?
http://badbarr2008.com/index.html
Can anyone substantiate some of the more obscure “allegations” of this?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
paulie, you talked with Mary’s husband & he says her campaign has little support, staff & contributions? Kind of like Kubby? Coincidence? Maybe Smith, Jingo, etc. & me? & you have the balls to bust my balls about my lack of support? There is something going on. I think Tom is correct in saying RP’s campaign appealed to GOP conservatives. But it didn’t reach them. His kind of nostalgic conservative is not their idea of conservative. It reached libs. I think libs maxed out their support to RP/RP. & when it was recently suggested he reimburse about $10 million that was met with cheers & applause reportedly. So I think libs have donor fatigue & buyers’ remorse & guilt feelings & reluctance to support ANYONE very much. i.e. they’ve been punked. They are the victims of a very sophisticated domestic covert operation. Barr’s Ronulesque moneymeter is crawling up at a snail’s pace. It could be there specifically to sponge up the last of the lib support by the FBI/CIA and/or GOP/Rove. Think about it. Libs max out supporting a GOP candidate leaving little left for the LP & the REAL LP candidates. Ingenious. ROVIAN! Something needs to be done. ASAP. Before the convention. Otherwise the convention also becomes a fiasco. The obvious entity to do something is the LNC.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Mary Ruwart won’t get in any debates. Even though Wayne Allyn Root self-promotes too much he really does make a good point that we need to water down our views for the American people.
My favorites:
Best for the hardliners: Christina Smith – she’s a “radical” and her views most represent me own
Best for the Party: Wayne Allyn Root – sick of the self-promoting but he can get a lot of media and he I think he’s right in that if we want to grow as a party we have to stop taking a fringe stance on every issue
How about this? We go more moderate, we win the majority of the House and THEN we elect some of more “radical” candidates to push some STRONG Libertarian ideals? Why are we uncompromising when we don’t even have any power? At this time we have to be the most compromising. But we should ALWAYS be the party of PRINCIPLE.
What do I mean by compromise? Instead of saying “taxes are evil, let’s eliminate them.” Let say, “we will work to cut everyone’s taxes. while we don’t think the Federal Income Tax system is a great system, we will try our best to relieve the American people by letting them keep more of their own money.”
April 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
btw I think Eric Dondero is despicable for supporting fascist Giuliani and for bashing Ron Paul. I just am trying to be practical here. I think Wayne will give the LP some more credibility. But how about Mike Gravel? I think he would help us eradicate that “Libertarians are Republicans that smoke pot” reputation that we have. I would be fine with either or but I don’t see much support for Gravel within Libertarian circles, do you?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
While were at it we might want to take a second look at the fire in my house & the exact circumstances my father was cheated out of the house & hence I was cheated out of a RENTAL INCOME producing Historic Neighborhood duplex which was then GUTTED. Where is the respect for the original materials & workmanship & designs? But it sure goofed ME up, didn’t it?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
paulie said “The reason that the Ruwart campaign is not doing more is because they have very little in the way of staff/volunteers.”
I know Ruwart’s campaign is getting contributions. Is it $25,000? Most likely not. Also, let’s not forget, her campaign is all of 3 weeks old! You may say, Barr’s pseudo campaign is only 1 1/2 weeks old, but he has been slowly gearing up for this for over a year.
I have no doubt that Ruwart has delegate support, and I think believes that at this point, her best strategy is to tap into the solid support she has with delegates, and win over the rest. If she wins the nomination, I have no doubt that she will get all kinds of help, donations, volunteers, and general election campaign strategy help. I saw what happened in Atlanta. Within a 1/2 hour after he won the nomination on the third ballot, the Badnarik campaign had to get donation envelopes and slips from the Russo campaign. They had raised about $10,000 in a few hours, and Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw went into high gear that very day to set up the general election campaign. Steve Gordon came on board within a few days, after wrapping up Russo’s campaign, I think (Steve?), and Tom Knapp, well I think he came on board with Badnarik in some capacity a few weeks later (Tom?). It’ll all come together if Mary wins the nomination, I have no doubt.
All this pre-nomination stuff is nothing compared to what will happen once the nominee is chosen.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Joseph Marzullo,
I ‘d really like to discuss some of your points, but I need to get to sleep. I will try to take it up tomorrow. Hopefully, you’ll be “listening”.
BTW, I am not trying or going to say I’m right you’re wrong or anything like that, I’ll just give you my viewpoint.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Steve LaBianca, that was 2004. There wasn’t a Ron Paul sponging up most of the lib support.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:27 am
paulie – I volunteered and never heard anything back. I was a Ron Paul Meetup organizer, county coordinator, and (later) paid congressional district coordinator and office manager. Prior to that, I had paid positions on some major party campaigns, volunteered on others, and even ran a high-profile third-party campaign myself.
Never got a response from Ruwart.
So she has no one to blame but herself for “lack of volunteers.”
April 15th, 2008 at 12:41 am
G.E., not necessarily. We have AT LEAST 2 party stalwarts with lack of support. Kubby & Ruwart. Several others possibly also including me. If there was some sort of general malaise like Ron Paul syndrome, that would explain a lot.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:19 am
G.E., ok. I see what you mean. I’ve sent several emails to ruwart.com. No reply. If it was sent there instead of to the campaign website, maybe it was lost somehow.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:32 am
paulie, Taft 23.2. Wasn’t that in 1912 with TR the progressive at 27%?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I volunteered and never heard anything back.
One of the most difficult things about volunteer coordination is that the more you need volunteers, the less you are capable of actually integrating volunteers into your system :-/ I’ve seen this in several organizations.
Have some patience, keep asking, and… do as Paul volunteers did. Organize your own efforts.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Susan Hogarth, Come on. Even I by myself set up a campaign website & had volunteers fill out the form. Am I missing something here or are you? I’ve alleged a support problem as a result of RP/RP. paulie basically verified it with the Ruwart campaign. Kubby also. G.E. has commented with what is supposedly contrary information-this volunteer that never heard back from the Ruwart campaign. Now you come along & say tut tut there. No problem. Just keep trying to volunteer. You’ll eventually get through. NOT. Something else is going on or the whole LP presidential campaigns wouldn’t be so, well, UNSUPPORTED! RP/RP gets tens of MILLIONS & LP candidates struggle for thousands or hundreds. G.E. says he sent Mary $50 & would send her more if she shapes up & upgrades=BLAME THE VICTIM.& he doesn’t mention how much he supported RP/RP, Like a good Ronulan.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:34 am
You Ron Paul supporters screwed yourselves & screwed the LP.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Evidently there is donor fatigue, burnout, guilt feelings & reluctance to support a “libertarian” again. Man, I wish you Ronulans hadn’t done that. & I wish that asshole hadn’t careless smoked in my house. & I wish my father had listened to me & not sold to a real estate rip off lawyer & I wish I had vaccinated my dead kitten. Dammit! I guess I’m in with the right company-LOSERS!
April 15th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Steve,
“They had raised about $10,000 in a few hours, and Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw went into high gear that very day to set up the general election campaign. Steve Gordon came on board within a few days, after wrapping up Russo’s campaign, I think (Steve?), and Tom Knapp, well I think he came on board with Badnarik in some capacity a few weeks later (Tom?)”
I’m having a senior moment here—I can’t remember whether it was late July or late August.
Badnarik arrived at the nomination with one staffer (Jon Airheart, who continued through the post-nomination campaign as Badnarik’s driver, aide, etc.), a few volunteers (Trevor Southerland comes to mind) and a lot of goodwill from Libertarians around the country who had seen him stump his heart out. No money—he was so broke by the time of the national convention that he couldn’t afford to stay at the convention hotel.
I can’t remember everyone offhand (hey, it’s 3:30 in the morning), but Barb and Fred (who unfortunately don’t take pre-nomination campaigns), Gordon, Geoff and Nancy Neale, Rick McGinnis and others took that campaign from $0 to $1 million in five months and kept Badnarik running his ass off. I was brought on board about the time they were doing a total web site revamp, first to help get the issues papers in order and bulked out, then as sort of a jack-of-all-trades writer to help with online interviews, press release writing, and so forth. Lots of other staff and volunteers, too—George Phillies, Chris Bennett, Cheryl Bates, Kathryn Weitzel, Anthony Gregory, Mary Ruwart, Stephen VanDyke, the media scheduler whose damn name I can’t remember at the moment but who must have worked 24/7 …
... it was a ballbuster of a great campaign. Badnarik polled about as well as Browne had four years earlier on much less money and without a four-year buildup, in an election that was perceived as tighter. He polled not much below Ron Paul’s 1988 results, with even less money and 1/3 the time as nominee.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:02 am
When I said I’ve sent several emails to ruwart.com I meant over several months.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Tom, so what are you saying? I’m wrong? I’m a whiner & Bad’n wasn’t? Or libs have a history of not supporting their candidates e.g. Bad’n? & did Russo & Nolan contribute to their own campaign? I heard Nolan mortgaged his house for campaign $. & you have previously commented that I’m wrong about RP/RP support coming mostly from libs. You said mostly from conservative gops. So how do you explain his lame polling & votes? That is more consistent with The Libertarian Vote numbers than conservative republican numbers. Conservatives sent him millions but only libs voted for him? So I’m wrong & the convention will sort it all out & the nominee will get deluged with post nomination good will & support? Sounds lame to me.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Why support someone who won’t grow the Party? I don’t get it. Let’s get in the mainstream!
April 15th, 2008 at 4:31 am
What in the world will Mary Ruwart do for the Party? No name recognition. No media exposure. Brings nothing to the party. Wastes resources. She’s a lovely woman and we agree on pretty much everything but I don’t think she has what it takes to be the LP nominee. What in the hel does she bring to the table besides her views? Hell, anyone can have views, that’s free and universal. What we need is some fuel for the engine.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:37 am
I don’t like Wayne Root on some key issues but I think he brings something to the table. We have to see what people bring to the table before we nominate them because virtually all of the candidates (well, most) hold strong Libertarian views.
What does Phillies bring? um, an “organization” that is “already running” um, ok? No thanks!
Christina Smith: She’s my favorite, but what does she bring? zero
Imperato: a joke
Jingozian: retarded. wasn’t that guy running as a Green one time? lol.
Kubby: he doesn’t even attend the debates, what is his problem? And what does he bring? nothing.
Wayne Root: I think he will bring media and GOP that hate McCain. I think he is our best bet to help grow the Party. I just hope the paleocons don’t fuck with our platform
April 15th, 2008 at 4:59 am
There is another choice. Bob Barr. But will the media cover him? I saw him and they looked like they hated him. I don’t see him bringing in many people.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Yeah, I hate MSM myself. but why nominate a guy they won’t ever cover? He might be the McCain alternative but no one will ever hear about him.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Bob,
You write:
“Tom, so what are you saying? I’m wrong? I’m a whiner & Bad’n wasn’t?”
Well, you are often wrong and you are sometimes a whiner, but no, that’s not what I was saying.
Badnarik drove raised and spent $40,000 and drove 20,000 miles seeking the LP’s 2004 nomination. I don’t have exact figures on how many states he visited how many times, but I do know that he visited Missouri at least twice and I think three times prior to the national convention.
I guess the whine factor could be relevant:
To the best of my recollection, Badnarik never complained that the LNC didn’t hand him a sack full of cash and set up events for him. Had he done so, he probably would have arrived in Atlanta with even less support than he had (one informal poll just prior to the convention had him at 8%, I think).
To the best of my recollection, Badnarik didn’t call the party he wanted to nominate him “losertarians,” nor did he try to tell them that sacrificing their core tenets was the key to a “progressive alliance”—he actually DID engage the Greens, participating in numerous joint events with their nominee. They even got arrested together.
Your strategy and Badnarik’s could not be more different. Badnarik worked his ass off all over the country to show the party he deserved the nomination. You sit in New Jersey waving around a set of numbers that are the key to victory in your imagination.
“Or libs have a history of not supporting their candidates e.g. Bad’n? & did Russo & Nolan contribute to their own campaign? I heard Nolan mortgaged his house for campaign $.”
Nolan sold his house late in the pre-nomination campaign and loaned the money to his campaign. I don’t know how much of Russo’s campaign money was his own, but presumably a good part of it was.
“& you have previously commented that I’m wrong about RP/RP support coming mostly from libs. You said mostly from conservative gops. So how do you explain his lame polling & votes? That is more consistent with The Libertarian Vote numbers than conservative republican numbers.”
Actually, no it isn’t. The Libertarian vote in the general election runs 0.3-0.5%. Even concentrating that whole vote into one party’s primaries and assuming higher turnout, it doesn’t come close to the 5-15% Paul managed.
“So I’m wrong & the convention will sort it all out & the nominee will get deluged with post nomination good will & support?”
I don’t know how much post-convention support there will be for the nominee. For one thing, I don’t know who the nominee will be. For another, I don’t know if the Paul faction of the party will return to support the LP nominee, or if they’ll do other things (a Paul write-in drive, etc.).
At this point, I’ll be surprised if the LP runs a million dollar campaign regardless of whom it nominates, and greatly surprised if it runs a two million dollar campaign. It needs to run a a ten million dollar campaign to really make headway.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:24 am
TO ALL -Especially “Jerry S., “Kedzie Bear”, and “Tom”,
Regarding the error in this press release, about the incorrect vote percentages of the “other” candidates at the LPNC from the Ruwart Campaign Committee, I emailed the Ruwart campaign about this, and this is what Mary Ruwart personally responded back to me with:
“Steve,
Thank you for pointing this out. I did not personally check the numbers and should have. I will ask my press secretary to issue a correction. Please extend my “thank you” those who called it to your attention on my behalf.”
April 15th, 2008 at 8:44 am
..If/when Republicrat politics all boils down to ‘the money’..and virtually no Republicrats (many/most ‘libertarians’ too, in my experience)understand ‘the money’..
..it would seem Republicrats (and many/most ‘libertarians’ too) will be forever ‘flailing at the leaves whilst leaving the root$ untouched’.. ;o)
April 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Mr. Marzullo are you running for office? Have you stepped up to the plate? Are you putting in the time and effort and standing in the spotlight offering the LP and America your views? Mr. Jingozian retarded? How dare you? How dare you disparage any of the good people who while different are trying to make a difference and offer the LP membership a choice. I have actually talked to Michael Jingozian and he is a brilliant business man and a graduate of NYU. Have you gone to the www.resetamerica.com website and listened to his views? Have you read his 5 year plan? You wonder why mainstream America treats the LP the way it does, it’s because of ignorant comments like your post.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
the media scheduler whose damn name I can’t remember at the moment but who must have worked 24/7 …
Jeff Frazee. He’s currently one of the good guys over at Ron Paul presidential HQ, where he serves as the Youth Coordinator or some such title.
I also wrote a letter of recommendation for him to intern at Ron Paul’s congressional office and he was offered the gig.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I for one was glad to see a release from the campaign, as over 90% (not accurate by the way-lol) of coverage is on Barr and Root when there are 14 candidates in the race is a little out of whack. Then when a release comes that included math figures, it looks like uneducated and/or inaccurate people are in charge and might not deserve to receive the nomination and be in charge of whatever money is available for the general election. So glad to see Mary hadn’t seen the release, however she needs to make sure her staff understands the seriousness of a POTUS campaign and needs to double (even triple) check all media releases before they go out. JMO
I’m not a Root or Barr supporter. I had thought a well funded Barr campaign could have been a hugh vote getter in Nov. Well, Mr. Barr isn’t a MEGA success at fundraising so far and probably won’t be in the long run. There is no validity to Barr being a major player in this years election. Without money for paid ads, the msm won’t cover him. Sure there is some coverage now, but without money why should they cover him down the road? With all due respect I can assure you, it won’t be due to his good looks and glowing personality ! No he would be blacked out just like all other third Party/Indy efforts with no money to compete for votes on the airwaves. IMO Root is more libertarian at this point than Barr, however I know (like the rest of you know) the majority of the Party wouldn’t want Root to represent them at this time in his LP journey.
Burns, Hess, Smith, Kubby and Ruwart are =/> 95/95 Libertarians. All others are less than them on a Nolan chart quiz. So where is the LP now? The most recent Libertarian Lists poll shows that OF the 17-22 % of self-proclaimed Convention Delegates surveyed at that time, over 51% supported Barr or Root for the nomination. The survey also shows that Barr pulls more support away from Ruwart than from any other candidate. Barr must be drawn into the debate before the convention to separate him and his views from the above five or he and Root can control the convention with 51 % of the delegation.
Barr’s people have been smart keeping him out of the debates so far. Phillies and Gravel could nick him up a great deal and Ruwart, Smith, et al would highlight his weaknesses to longtime LP members. All this would knock his numbers down, along with their blunders of placing his lackluster moneymeter for all to see on his website, also coming out with the “fair”TAX angle pre convention and posting elsewhere on his webite his continued wish for aid ($) and support for the drug war in central america, it all combined would keep him from any chance at the nomination. They may still pull it off by sheilding him from direct confrontation, we shall see.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Steve Gordon came on board within a few days, after wrapping up Russo’s campaign, I think (Steve?),
I sort of came on board in three phases. The first one was my proudest. When Badnarik took the stage after winning, I jumped up on the stage, uninvited, shook Badnarik’s hand and had him place a Badnarik pin on me in front of the CSPAN cameras. After this, I mostly slept for a couple of weeks, as I was burned out from a balls-to-the-wall Russo campaign.
For the next few weeks, I assisted some from my house. I helped with a few events (most notably, activities surrounding the G8 Summit), wrote some papers, press releases, recruited people, etc. and gradually became more involved in the campaign.
Eventually, I loaded up a pickup truck and headed for Austin, where I spent the last few months of the campaign.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Jerry the reason you see, so much Barr/Root is they are using TPW as a media outlet as they should. Michael Jingozian has a internet advertising company angelvisiontech and as such uses www.resetamerica.com and sites like youtube as it’s main media outlet. I think as the convention approaches you will see much more from Jingozian for president and all of the candidates here.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Steve,
Yes, Jeff Frazee—I can’t believe I couldn’t get his name up from my brain. I met Jeff in Austin, and we worked together quite a bit. He scheduled live interviews (radio, TV, phone or face with print journalists, web chats), I handled the non-live side (email interviews, etc., for which I could pull up past quotes and prepare draft responses for Badnarik to work from so that he didn’t have to do each such “interview” from scratch).
I do recall Jeff telling me that he would be interning for Paul. Glad to see he’s still neck-deep in the movement.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Jerry S. said, “The most recent Libertarian Lists poll shows that OF the 17-22 % of self-proclaimed Convention Delegates surveyed at that time, over 51% supported Barr or Root for the nomination.
I believe that this is not the most recent survey, but the most recent results. I also believe that this survey you cite was conducted for 26-30 March I think. Mary Ruwart had been a declared candidate all of 5 days when this survey was initiated for “voting”.
The newest survey came out two weeks later, but I have not seen the results yet. I am (im)patiently waiting to see what has changed, and what hasn’t.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Tom, thank you for that thoughtful & informative reply. Do you realize how many times you’ve done that over the last several years? One way of looking at that is quite an investment you know. Interesting that you mention $10mil as what would be needed to make much headway & $10 mil was mentioned as how much Ron Paul should reimburse to cheers reportedly! Also I seem to recall 10million votes as necessary to make much headway in that area mentioned in recent comments here. & here is crazy (but luvable great uncle type!) me SITTING at my computer, not driving (myself crazy) TALKING about making do with $85 mil from my fabulously wealthy Uncle Sam & getting a peak of about 40 million votes on election day! At this point I’ve gotta whine. How come my “good” computer works at my technician’s bench but when I plug in the monitor at home it doesn’t work? Anyway, I like your war (campaign) stories. I must admit I couldn’t drive that much with that low polling & I couldn’t sell my house if I had it for campaign money. Sorry. My dedication (insanity) has limits. But now, I must disagree with your numbers re: RP/RP. Assuming the Cato study is in the ballpark realm of reality. If there are about 13% libs, where are they? Not in the LP. The LP numbers membership are nowhere near that. & the study specifically stated it studied THE BEGINNING of the election cycle. So when you quote election RESULTS, you are defeating the study. I think they are there as registered republicans! Yes, just because RP calls them conservatives doesn’t make them conservatives. That is a misnomer on his part shared by some old timers. & he is deluding himself that these conservative/libertarians can/will expand their numbers by persuasion or revolution or whatever & take over the GOP & Happy Days are here again scenario fantasy delusion! These are the ones TR took in the 1912 election. + he got SOME of the dem vote. 7% crossover. More or less. So, you are correct when you say that’s where MOST of the 35 mil came from. BUT since 72% of L LIBs supported RP/RP (Libertarianlists poll), that tells us THEY also maxed out their support for RP/RP even though it was not comparitively much $ OR numbers (people/votes). SO, the RP/RP syndrome is real & that 35 mil could go to a strong libertarian i.e. represents an ideal maximum & WOULD have gone to a progressive alliance ticket IF not for RP/RP AND if the progressive alliance ticket had materialized. That’s my analysis & I’m sticking to it. Call me crazy & a whiner & don’t support me all you TPW/libertarian fellow losers all you want!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I am not a “Libertarian wing of the LP” Libertarian, so it may seem odd that I back Ruwart. It’s not for her ideological fidelity; it is in fact for the very reason she is being criticized by some—her soft approach. I am tired of the screaming, angry, attack-style politics that, while it has always existed (look back to Adams vs. Jefferson 1796 and 1800 if you don’t believe it), has grown more amplified of late. I want someone calm, rational, and friendly, who will present her/his views in a respectful way. I want to vote against acrimony.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Filz,
>Mr. Marzullo are you running for office?
No, want to be my campaign manager? lol.
>Have you stepped up to the plate?
Build me a campaign and I’ll do so :p ha
>Are you putting in the time and effort and standing in the spotlight offering the LP and America your views?
Am I? I’m not running, so why would I be? I don’t even think I’m old enough to run for POTUS.
>Mr. Jingozian retarded?
He seems confused and he’s very bland. I never actually heard one original idea from him in any of the debates I’ve watched. He doesn’t make any sense.
>How dare you?
How dare I be critical of Mr. Jingozian. If I can walk away from a debate not knowing someone’s views then there is no possible way I can support that person lol.
>How dare you disparage any of the good people who while different are trying to make a difference and offer the LP membership a choice.
I don’t understand what difference he’s making. Wanna tell me about that?
>I have actually talked to Michael Jingozian and he is a brilliant business man and a graduate of NYU.
But he’s not a good candidate imo. He’s better in contrast to Obama/McCain/Clinton but I don’t think you can say the same thing after looking at the other candidates in the LP.
>Have you gone to the www.resetamerica.com website and listened to his views?
There’s actually real views there? I went there and only saw some weird “5 year plan” rhetoric and a few pdf files that look more like business plans than political beliefs.
>Have you read his 5 year plan?
Why not “4 year plan”? POTUS is elected for 4 years lol. And it sounds like something from the Soviet Union.
>You wonder why mainstream America treats the LP the way it does, it’s because of ignorant comments like your post.
Uh, no. It’s because of the extreme run the Party and the MSM paints it as fringy.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
btw.. i I had to choose the BEST libertarian I would choose Mrs. Christina Smith. Beautiful woman and the best views on stage BUT I don’t think she will do a thing for the Party.
This is what I call compromising.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
If*
April 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Joseph – You forgot the best choice and the person who is going to be the nominee—Mary Ruwart.
What are you afraid of the “palecons” doing? I’d rather have the palecons in control than the cosmotarians.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Messing with women’s right to choose for 1.
Mary Ruwart will be the nominee? Then we gain nothing.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“... it was a ballbuster of a great campaign. Badnarik polled about as well as Browne had four years earlier on much less money and without a four-year buildup, in an election that was perceived as tighter. He polled not much below Ron Paul’s 1988 results, with even less money and 1/3 the time as nominee.”
Harry Browne was up against higher profile “3rd party” candidates in 1996 in Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and in 2000 against Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan.
The only big “third party” opposition that Badnarik was up against was Ralph Nader, and Nader wasn’t nearly as big a force in 2004 as he was in 2000, and he was on less ballots in 2004 as he was in 2000 (mostly due to the Democarts playing dirty to keep him off of ballots).
April 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Joseph – Women have the same rights to choose that men do, and should have more. If you mean the “right” to initiate force against a fetus, then I don’t see this as a “right” at all, but as an interventionist policy. I understand others disagree, but let there be no mistake—this is no area for the federal government to be involved in either way. That power was not delegated to the central government by the Constitution and thus it is reserved to the states or to the people.
If Ruwart is the nominee then we may gain nothing—but at least we don’t lose our institutional self respect as a LIBERTARIAN Party.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/04/new-polling-data-for-libertarian-party-presidential-hopefuls/
First you call me petty, then you call me wrong. Needless to say you aren’t a follower of Dale Carnegy are you ?
When you add 29.7 to 21.7 you get 51.4 % in every state in america and all military bases abroad…
Two weeks later was two days ago and I didn’t notice a new survey last week. I’m going by the latest survey posted on TPW that I know of…
As for Mary Ruwart being a candidate five days, Barr hadn’t annouced his exploratory committee.
LaBianca Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Jerry S. said, “The most recent Libertarian Lists poll shows that OF the 17-22 % of self-proclaimed Convention Delegates surveyed at that time, over 51% supported Barr or Root for the nomination.
I believe that this is not the most recent survey, but the most recent results. I also believe that this survey you cite was conducted for 26-30 March I think. Mary Ruwart had been a declared candidate all of 5 days when this survey was initiated for “voting”.
The newest survey came out two weeks later, but I have not seen the results yet. I am (im)patiently waiting to see what has changed, and what hasn’t.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Patience people. There’s still a month and a half until Denver, and that’s a political eternity.
Milnes, your progressive alliance burned down your house, and your computer doesn’t work with your home monitor because your video drivers are out of date. Update them. I don’t balme Dr. Ruwart for not responding to your emails; even if I was running against you I wouldn’t either.
As far as Dr. Ruwart’s vounteers and staff, it is developing. Some of us are waiting for our tribute overpayment checks so we can do something. Me, I’ll probably use some of my extra paycheck next month while in Denver. Times are tight.
I too, like the soft approach.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:17 am
What’s so great about Mary Ruwart? She isn’t even that great of a speaker.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Michael Seebeck, thank you for your curt reply. I would think common courtesy would be sufficient for Dr. Ruwart to reply to one email. She presumably is open to responding to supporter’s correspondence in some fashion. Dr. Kwiatkowski replied-twice. “Times are tight.” Tell me about it. Try getting cheated out your income producing rental property by a slick real estate lawyer precisely because you couldn’t afford a counter lawyer. Yet there are well over a million millionaires in the USA. Almost certainly a few are libs or greens. & if a few libs did not support Ron Paul that could help too. Good luck with volunteers & staff & contributions. That does seem to be a problem this year. About the computer, I do not think it is the video drivers but I will include that as possible. My home monitor was working fine with it. My technician, who has a LOT of diplomas on his wall & an excellent workbench & top equipment for his personal use, had it working on his bench as I said. I tried tightening connections. We’ll see. As far as the progressive alliance, if you have any constructive, informed comments or would like to pursue it, I’m open to suggestions and cooperation. Otherwise you are just a dime a dozen scoffer.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:26 am
PS. “My” computer tech owns 2 local retail computer sales & service stores.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:25 am
What will Ruwart do for the party? She will bring us more votes than any other Libertarian candidate running (with the possible exception of Bob Barr) and increase the size of the Libertarian party more than any other candidate running. Like Harry Browne, she will communicate libertarian ideas persuasively to a mass audience.
The question you all should be asking is this: What do we miss out on if we choose a lesser-qualified candidate like Root or Gravel? We miss out on a lot, and damage the party simultaneously.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
April 16th, 2008 at 8:37 am
I like Ruwart a whole lot, but she is unknown outside of the LP and will stay that way. She communicates well, but no one outside of the LP will be listening.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I agree, LifeMember. I think Christina Smith wins the Libertarian litmus test but I don’t think she will be any good for the Party so I don’t want her to win.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I can’t just vote for who I want and who will not do anything for the cause but maybe hold us back more.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Jerry S. – Griping over simple errors of raw votes for % of votes IS petty. It was an error, and the Ruwart campaign has issued a new release, and apologized for the mistake. Further, here is the “uncut” top of the email I got on Apr 8 (though I edited out my email address):
admin | Save to Address Book | Block Sender
To : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Subject : Latest Survey Results and New Survey on Issues and Presidential Preferences
Date : Tue, Apr 08, 2008 12:06 AM
EmailVideo Mail EmailVideo Mail Report As JunkBlock Sender[ Printable Version ]
ImageBlocked
Click here to display images in this message or edit your settings for all messages.
External Images and objects in this message have been blocked. What’s this?
Libertarian Lists LogoCLICK HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LATEST LIBERTARIAN LISTS SURVEY
An analysis of the latest Libertarian List survey results are here and the raw baseline data are available here. Additionally, we have a new survey which asks some new issue questions of interest to people associated with the libertarian movement.
______________________________________________________
Jerry S., do you see this – “latest Survey Results and New Survey on Issues and Presidential Preferences, AND I TOOK THE SURVEY! The results WERE from the end of March, and I am still waiting for the results of THIS new survey from April 8. YOUR WERE BEING PETTY , and I did not say that you were “wrong”. I simply said that a new survey was out, which might indicate a change of support since Mary Ruwart’s entry into the contest got more acknowledged.
Jerry S. also said, “As for Mary Ruwart being a candidate five days, Barr hadn’t annouced his exploratory committee.” The simple truth is, even though Barr didn’t even have his exploratory committee yet, it was VERY WIDELY perceived that he has readying himself for a presidential run with the LP for at least a year. Mary Ruwart had been saying for a long time she wasn’t interested in running, and was supporting Ron Paul. Only when it became apparent that Paul was not going to get the Republican nomination, did she think that she would do it, as many LPers had asked her to run.
Jerry S. I did not say that you were wrong, only that a new survey WAS conducted, but the results hadn’t come out yet. Get your facts straight and stop twisting the truth!
April 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Life Menber says: “I like Ruwart a whole lot, but she is unknown outside of the LP and will stay that way. She communicates well, but no one outside of the LP will be listening.”
I guess that her Healing our World book being on the best seller list was that and only libertarians were purchasing it? I guess her being on the cover of Life Extension magazine (with an article about her), a health, wellness, and anti aging publication isn’t outside the party? I guess her being on the board of the Fully Informed Jury Association isn’t outside the LP? I guess her activism in the right
todie community isn’t outside the LP?No question, her candidacy will have to be promoted to these people, but you are absolutely incorrect about her not being known outside the LP. W.A.R. claims to have so much support outside the LP, yet even in his “gaming community” several online poker players I know have never heard of W.A.R. Yet, at the same time, several friends of mine are health, wellness and supplement enthusiasts, and they have heard of Mary Ruwart. They don’t know a lot about her but know OF her. Go Figure!